In sports, most people associate a team’s financial success with its location: typically defined as either small-market or big-market. But the latest data from the 2008-2009 NBA seasons suggests that it is as much a combination of team success as it is market size.

The six teams with the highest percentage of seats at capacity represent a mixture of market size and team competitiveness:

Dallas Mavericks: 104.3% – mediocre season, strong market
Portland Trail Blazers: 102.6% – clinched playoff berth today
Boston Celtics: 100% – coming off 2007-2008 NBA Championship
Los Angeles Lakers: 100% – best record in the Western Conference
Phoenix Suns: 100% – competitive team but unlikely playoff berth
Utah Jazz: 100% – one of conference’s best four teams

The worst performing teams are also the least attended (no shocker)… but it is not necessarily a function of geography:

Memphis Grizzlies: 69.9% capacity, down 1.6% from last year
Sacramento Kings: 71.3% capacity, down 12.4%
Minnesota Timberwolves: 73.7% capacity, 3 games above 80% capacity
Charlotte Bobcats: 74.1% capacity, down 2.9%
Philadelphia 76ers: 75.3% capacity; 2 games above 80% capacity

A few more ways to view this:

Three of the NBA’s worst team, including the worst team at 16-59, are the least attended:
Sacramento Kings (16-59): 28 games under 75% capacity
Memphis Grizzlies (22-54): 26 games under 75%
Charlotte Bobcats (34-43): 22 games under 75%

The Washington Wizards are in the midst of a brutal season and have the second worst record in the NBA at 18-60. They represent the second biggest decrease in attendance (-9.2%). The Sacramento Kings are the only team with a worse record; they have a largest decrease in attendance at -12.4%.

Interestingly, Detroit is a bizarre case because they dominate in attendance despite having an off-year (currently in the 8th seed if the playoffs started today):
#1 in total attendance by 70,000 (786,591 through March 23)
#1 in average attendance per game at 21,850 (league average is 17,385)

Popularity: 9% [?]